…there are two things that are needed for a gun to work: the gun and the ammunition. Limiting guns may be hopeless. So why don’t we focus on the bullets?

…[the Second Amendment] doesn’t say a single thing about the right to own bullets. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, bullets were largely inert slugs, loaded into flint-lock muskets propelled with loose gunpowder packed into the muzzle. There was no need to assure the right to ammunition, which may be the loophole the government needs to dramatically curtail the scourge of gun violence.

Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it — or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets — we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable, secure nation.

...the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 outlawed the manufacture or importation, but not the sale or possession, of magazines that could hold more than ten rounds.

Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity.

Those states and localities, by the way, include: Washington, DC; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Hawaii; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New York; Chicago; Los Angeles and San Francisco. Note that Virginia is not on that list, which is what Sen. Dave Marsden is trying to change — an effort he should be commended for (note: even if it doesn’t become law, it’s a good debate to have).